Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1913 2000 SLD 1913 2000 CLC 962
Lahore High Court
Review Application No. 16 of 1998, decision dated: 7-12-1999
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Shahzad Jehangir for Petitioner. Faisal Islam for
Respondent

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED

VS

CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION (BEIJING)

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Review application---Maintainability---Where under review suffered from errors floating on the surface of the record and there was misreading and non-consideration of material evidence, review application against such was maintainable in 'circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1998)--- ----S. 114---Review of ---Ignoring of important pieces of evidence in the , while certain assumptions had been made which were not supported by evidence or were based upon misreading of the same--­Effect---Judgment and decree under review was set aside in circumstances. ORDER This application seeks review of the judgment and decree,dated 8-6-1998 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court comprising myself and my learned brother Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, J. (as'he then was) by virtue of which the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31-7-1989 was dismissed. 2. The background in which this application arises is that the petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance. 1984. filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,19,65,500 against the respondent in which it claimed that it had acted as an agent for the' respondent-company to secure contract for the supply of machinery to be installed in Jamshoro Theremal Power Plant in Units Nos.2 and 4 and was entitled to recover the commission for the services rendered. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the petitioner was never appointed as an Agent by the respondent. The dispute between the parties to the appeal mainly related to the above question which had been reduced in the form of issues Nos.4 and 5 which reads as under:--- (4) Whether there exists any privity of contract between the parties as an agent and principal? OPP (5) Whether the plaintiff acted as an agent of defendant to secure the contract in question? OPP 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard to some extent on the appeal. They were permitted to supplement the arguments by filing written notices. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 8-6-1998. 4. This petition has been placed before…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492